alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          14,637
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,795
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         102,705
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            96,268
<LOANS>                                        326,805
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 486,349
<DEPOSITS>                                     355,759
<SHORT-TERM>                                    72,258
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,050
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,253
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,638
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,391
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 486,349
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 21,703
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                6,187
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 1,193
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                29,083
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,194
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,749
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,334
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      327
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,509
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,799
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,332
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,332
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.10
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,171
<LOANS-PAST>                                        25
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   751
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,085
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 1,284
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       98
<RECOVERIES>                                        21
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,534
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             1,534
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
May 17, 2006

27016

#### State v. Dutro

Vacated, Reversed and Remanded
Niclosamide/TFM FOCUS Meeting Summary

November 5, 2012

Participants:

PRD: Kelly Ballard, Neil Anderson, Laura Parsons

EFED: Andrew Sayer, Jim Carleton, Tom Steeger, Marietta Echeverria

HED: Seyed Tadayon, Linda Taylor, Pete Savoia, Mike Metzger

RD: Gene Benbow

BEAD: John Faulkner

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS): Jeff Slade, Rebecca Neeley, Michael Fodale, Bob Adair

Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC): Dale Burkett

United States Geological Survey (USGS): Terry Hubert, Mark Gaikowski

Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Paul Sullivan, Brian Stephens

Summary:

The purpose of the meeting was for members of EPA’s Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (PRD), 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED), Health Effects Division (HED), Registration 

Division (RD), and Biological and Economics Analysis Division (BEAD) to meet with the 

technical registrants of niclosamide and TFM, this case is the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), to discuss general information on the two chemicals and provide background on 

how and where they are applied in the environment. EPA asked FWS for a general overview of 

the use pattern, the ecological effects, environmental fate and associated risks, and human health 

risks of niclosamide and TFM. FWS and USGS provided several PowerPoint presentations with 

this general information.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1122 

To provide that chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States Code, relating 

to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, shall not apply to enrollment agreements made between students and certain institutions of higher education, and to prohibit limitations on the ability of students to 

pursue claims against certain institutions of higher education. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 28, 2015 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To provide that chapter 1 of title 9 of the United States 

Code, relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements, shall not apply to enrollment agreements made 

between students and certain institutions of higher education, and to prohibit limitations on the ability of students to pursue claims against certain institutions of 

higher education. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1122 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Court Legal Access 

3 and Student Support (CLASS) Act of 2015’’. 

4 SEC. 2. INAPPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 9, 

5 UNITED STATES CODE, TO ENROLLMENT 

6 AGREEMENTS MADE BETWEEN STUDENTS 

7 AND CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER 

8 EDUCATION. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 1 of title 9 of the United 

10 States Code (relating to the enforcement of arbitration 

11 agreements) shall not apply to an enrollment agreement 

12 made between a student and an institution of higher edu13 cation. 

14 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘institu15 tion of higher education’’ has the meaning given such term 

16 in section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

17 U.S.C. 1002). 

18 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON LIMITATIONS ON ABILITY OF STU19 DENTS TO PURSUE CLAIMS AGAINST CER20 TAIN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 

21 Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

22 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 

23 following: 

24 ‘‘(30) The institution will not require any stu25 dent to agree to, and will not enforce, any limitation 

26 or restriction (including a limitation or restriction on 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1122 IS

1 any available choice of applicable law, a jury trial, 

2 or venue) on the ability of a student to pursue a 

3 claim, individually or with others, against an institu4 tion in court.’’. 

5 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

6 This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall 

7 take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### State v. Astronomo

22221

12/21/2000

Granted
February 13, 1998

18785

#### State v. Du Plantier

Affirmed
**EXHIBIT 31.2**— Certification of Chief Financial Officer
**CERTIFICATION**
I, James E. Dixon, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SBS Technologies,Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under whichsuch statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known tous by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, asof the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.
May 14, 2004    /S/ James E. DixonJames E. Dixon*Executive Vice President,Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer*
Estrada	Aviation	Resources

1121 Landsdale Ln.

Saginaw Texas 76179

I, Antonio Estrada, Estrada Aviation Resources, hereby submit an exemption from part 21, 

subpart H and sections 45,23(b), 61,113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103(b), 91.109, 

91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 91.203(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a)(b) of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations. The purpose of this exemption is to operate a Phantom 2 

Vision+ quad-copter unmanned aircraft system (UAS) to conduct aerial photography, 

videography, and cinematography for realtors, homeowners, home builders, and home 

contractors for real estate marketing in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.

This exemption would benefit the public by assuring the operation of the UAV will be operated 

in a safe and economical fashion in the Dallas Fort Worth area. The public will be able to view 

the Dallas- Fort Worth area real estate on the Internet without having to travel to the area. 

The operation will include:

1. A 1242g, quad-copter, Phantom 2 Vision+ Unmanned Aircraft System

2. Airspeed will not exceed 30 knots

3. UAV will not be operated at an altitude of no more than 200 feet AGL

4. UAV will be operated within visual line of sight of the PIC

5. UAV will also have a visual observer at all times within verbal communication range

6. Phantom 2 Vision operating manual will be accessible during operations and be made 

available to the Administrator upon request

7. Phantom 2 Vision will be programed to return to original departure point in case it loses 

communication or GPS signal

8. A preflight check for safe condition will be conducted by the PIC prior to flight and 

logging in the aircraft records. This check will include the Ground Control Station. 

9. All maintenance will be performed by an FAA certificated A & P mechanic and logged 

into UAV maintenance records. A maintenance flight check will be performed prior to 

operations

10. Maintenance will include a 100 hour and annual inspection of all operating systems
11. Prior to operations the PIC will have a total of 25hrs total time as UAS rotorcraft pilot, to 

include 5 hours PIC in make and model as applied for in the exemption.

12. PIC will have a minimum of 5 take offs and landings prior to operations for currency 

purposes

13. PIC will notify local Air Traffic Control prior to operation or flight

14. UAS will not be operated within 5 nautical miles of an airport

15. UAS will be serialized, registered IAW 14CFR part 47 and have N-number markings in 

accordance with 14 CFR part 45,Subpart C. Markings will be as large as practicable

16. All operations shall be conducted over private or controlled-access property with 

permission from the property owner/controller or authorized representative 

If additional information is required, please feel free to contact me at (972) 998-2610 or 

email EAR2957@yahoo.com.

Regards,

Antonio Estrada

Owner/Operator

Estrada Aviation Resources
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00511-CV

Richard L. PEREZ,

Appellant

v.

CITIBANK, N.A.,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CV00521

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE 

VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR 

WANT OF PROSECUTION. Costs of the appeal are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED December 28, 2022.

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 18-09

TO: Biologics Licensees, Permittees, and Applicants

Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

Veterinary Services Leadership Team

FROM: Byron Rippke

Director

SUBJECT: Implementation Period for the Submission of Adverse Event Reports

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of this notice is to inform all licensees and permittees that there will be 

a phase-in period for implementation of the amended Virus-Serum-Toxin Act 

regulations that require all veterinary biologics licensees and permittees to record 

and submit reports to the Center for Veterinary Biologics (CVB) concerning adverse 

events associated with the use of the biological products they produce or distribute. 

II. BACKGROUND

On May 17, 2018, Docket Number APHIS-2014-0063, VSTA Records and Reports 

Specific to International Standards for Pharmacovigilance was published in the 

Federal Register, Volume 83, Number 96. The Federal Register publication

included background information, along with the description of the changes to 

title 9 Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR) including:

a) 9 CFR Part 101 - DEFINITIONS, adding the definitions for “adverse event”

and “adverse event report”; and 

b) 9 CFR Part 116 - RECORDS and REPORTS, describing the requirements for 

recording adverse events and submitting adverse event reports. 

III. ACTION 

The effective date of the new regulation is June 18, 2018. There will be a minimum 

18 month phase-in period for the implementation of the regulations during which the 

CVB will not require licensees and permittees to submit the adverse event reports 

described in 9 CFR 116.9. This does not, however, preclude the existing 

requirement for mandatory reporting under 9 CFR 116.5(b). During the 

implementation period, the CVB will work with industry to develop guidance 

documents explaining what actions CVB expects licensees and permittees to take in 

order to be in compliance with the new regulation.

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary 

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue

PO Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 337-6100
CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 18-09

Page 2

 An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

IV. IMPLEMENTATION/ APPLICABILITY

The phase-in period for implementation of the new regulations is effective immediately.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 115 (Tuesday, July 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                       TRIBUTE TO JAMES WHITCHER

 Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize James Whitcher, an 
intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has 
done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past 
several weeks.
  James is a graduate of Hot Springs High School in Hot Springs, SD. 
Currently, he is attending the University of Mary in Bismarck, ND, 
where he is majoring in athletic training. He is a hard worker who has 
been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.
  I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to James for all of the 
fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to 
come.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income for the Six Months Ended June 30,
1997 and the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          41,972
<SECURITIES>                                    25,600
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,696
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,761
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                97,079
<PP&E>                                          32,510
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,105
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 132,105
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           177
<OTHER-SE>                                      84,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   132,105
<SALES>                                         42,478
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                70,181
<CGS>                                            5,626
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   530
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  55
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,948
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,023
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                925
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       925
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05
        

</TABLE>
#### Carl DAHLSTRAND, as personal representative of the estate of Lola Dahlstrand, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SECURITY TITLE AGENCY, INC., Long-Term Disability Plan; UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 04-15809.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 30, 2005.

Decided Oct. 7, 2005.

Randolph G. Bachrach, Esq., Phoenix, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Stephen M. Bressler, Esq, Kimberly Demarchi Fax, Dominique K. Barrett, Esq., Lewis & Roca, LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: HAWKINS, THOMAS, and MCKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the district court’s summary judgment grant in favor of defendants. Even if we were to apply de novo review, UNUM was not provided sufficient evidence that Lola Dahlstrand was continuously disabled, as defined by the plan, prior to the end of her coverage through the ninety-day elimination period, as required by the plan. While some of her treating physicians stated that she was disabled, their statements did not provide sufficient detail regarding when and how she was disabled during the relevant time period.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-07-00092-CR

Ricci Renee Robbins, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 26TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 04-1128-K26, HONORABLE BILLY RAY STUBBLEFIELD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In November 2005, appellant Ricci Renee Robbins pleaded guilty to interfering with

child custody. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.03 (West Supp. 2007). The trial court deferred

adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision. The State subsequently moved to

adjudicate. Following a hearing on February 6, 2007, the court found that appellant had violated

the terms of her supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to two years in state jail and

a $1,000 fine.

In her only point of error, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to

support the decision to adjudicate. She relies on article 42.12, section 5(b), which, as amended

effective June 15, 2007, provides that the decision to adjudicate is appealable in the same manner

as the decision to revoke community supervision in cases in which adjudication was not deferred.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 2007). The amended section 5(b) only
2

applies, however, to adjudication hearings held on or after the effective date of the amendment. Act

of May 28, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 1308, § 53, 2007 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 4404, 4421. Because

the adjudication hearing in this cause was conducted before June 15, 2007, no appeal may be taken

from the decision to adjudicate. See Act of May 29, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 785, § 4.17, 1989

Tex. Gen. Laws 3471, 3501; Olowosuko v. State, 826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).

Because the point of error presents nothing for review, it is overruled.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Puryear and Pemberton

Affirmed

Filed: December 20, 2007

Do Not Publish
December 20, 2000

22468

#### State v. Dubach

Affirmed